Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilie Taman

:{{la|Emilie Taman}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emilie_Taman Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Emilie Taman}})

Political candidates/federal prosecutors are not notable. FUNgus guy (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• As yet unelected candidates in forthcoming elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the seat. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ms. Taman is a notable public figure. She is not simply a political candidate.

• She is fighting the government for denying her leave to run. This has attracted significant media attention. The case is currently before the Federal Court. This preceeded her candidacy.

• She is the daughter of two prominent Canadian figures: Louise Arbour (former Supreme Court Judge) and Larry Taman (former deputy Attorney General).

• She is a former prosecutor with notable files that preceded the election.

• She is not just a candidate for office - but has been described as a star candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.144.94 (talk • contribs)

::On point #1: that's still a factor of the candidacy, and not something that proves that she's notable independently of the candidacy. #2: being the daughter of somebody else does not give a person an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTINHERITED; a person who happens to have one or two famous parents still has to get over our inclusion standards completely on her own steam, and cannot get extra notability points just because of who her parents are. #3: then kindly show where reliable source media coverage of those notable files exists; as it stands right now, this article is resting exclusively on coverage of her candidacy with the exception of a single primary source which cannot confer notability at all. #4: the phrase "star candidate" doesn't automatically boost a person's notability just because some source used it, if sufficient reliable source coverage of her prior career isn't explicitly shown in the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see anything in her article that makes her notable before being elected to office; the coverage for her to pass GNG is not there. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This AfD should attract more participants with varied backgrounds before a consensus can be reached. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete While I suspect the person is notable, the article is mostly unsourced and probably violates our policy on BLPs. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep on basis of WP:N conferred by news coverage of PSC decision, as exemplified by [http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/senior-bureaucrats-fights-psc-for-right-to-run-in-election] [http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/federal-prosecutor-fights-decision-to-keep-her-from-running-in-federal-election] [http://ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/local-reviews/ndp-candidate-taman-appeals-to-overturn-prosecutor-election-ban]. While of relevance to her candidacy for the NDP in Ottawa-Vanier, it, in my opinion, is not notability conferred purely by the candidacy Samir 21:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• The PSC decision has made little-to-no news outside of Ottawa. Samir and the anon contributor above claim this is noteworthy, with the former using refs solely from The Ottawa Citizen. If I were to be refused leave from my job to run for office and that made the local paper, that would not give me enough notability for Wiki. If you can find other, non-local sources of notability/newsworthiness, I will rescind my deletion request. If she wins, then reinstate the page on/after 19 October. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Fungus Guy is correct, the PSC issue did not get any significant coverage beyond Ottawa's local media, so it's not enough to make her permanently notable in an international encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree very much that this is a borderline case. However, Radio-Canada is Canadian national media [http://ici.radio-canada.ca/sujet/elections-canada-2015/2015/08/10/006-emilie-taman-procureure-congediee-npd-ottawa-vanier.shtml], as is National Post [http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/federal-prosecutor-fired-for-seeking-ndp-nomination-without-permission-they-are-being-rather-heavy-handed], and [http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/federal-prosecutor-defies-order-that-barred-her-from-taking-leave-to-run-in-federal-election]. Not sure about Law Times but she has several articles regarding the firing including [http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201504274634/commentary/the-hill-decision-against-federal-lawyer-s-election-run-sparks-outrage-in-ottawa]. I'm not sure this article is as cut-and-dry non-encyclopedic as the nom and delete votes seem to think it is. Personally I think that criteria 3 of WP:NPOL is met -- Samir 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. Doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.